Writ Petition No. 32283 of 2002 · Madras High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, thispetition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In the writ petition, the petitioner states that he haspreferred a review to the first respondent along with a staypetition on 29.7.2002. Since the review petition is pendingbefore the first respondent along with application for stay and inview of the G.O.(D)No.651 Housing and Urban…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 18.1.2012CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARWrit Petition No.32283 of 2002 The Principal, Hebron School, Lushington Hall, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District. ... Petitioner Vs1.Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 104.
The District Collector, The Nilgris at Udhagamandalam.
The Commissioner, Udhagamandalam Municpality, at Udhagamandalam The Nilgris District. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents2 and 3 from in any manner proceeding with or demolishing theconstruction put up by the petitioner in S.No.4221/2F2 and 4221/2GB,Ootacamund pursuant to the proceedings of the Collector, The NilgrisDistrict at Uthagamandalam and made in Rc.D7.No.21222/2002-6 dated17.7.2002 and received on 23.7.2002 pending disposal of the reviewpetition before the first respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner : Mr.N.DamodaranFor respondents : Mr.I.Arockiyasamy, Government Advocatefor R1 and R2.Mr.P.Srinivas, for R3.
Operative part
O R D E R Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 2 and 3 from in any manner proceeding withor demolishing the construction put up by the petitioner inS.No.4221/2F2 and 4221/2GB, Ootacamund pursuant to the proceedings ofthe Collector, The Nilgris District at Uthagamandalam and made inRc.D7.No.21222/2002-6 dated 17.7.2002 and received on 23.7.2002pending disposal of the review petition before the first respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a reviewpetition has been filed to the first respondent and the same ispending. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 5.8.2002. In theW.P.M.P.No.46938 of 2002 notice to the respondents was ordered. Private notice was also permitted. The W.P.M.P.No.46938 of 2002 wasdismissed on 15.9.2003 observing as follows:-“Though this writ petition was admitted on5.8.2002 this court has not granted interim stay. Hence, I do not find any merit to grant interimstay after a period of one year. Hence, thispetition is dismissed.”
Today when the matter is listed for final disposal, Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the third respondentfiled a counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that the request forreclassification of land was rejected in G.O.(D)No.651 Housing and Urban Development (UD4-1) Department dated 28.10.2004.
In the writ petition, the petitioner states that he haspreferred a review to the first respondent along with a staypetition on 29.7.2002. Since the review petition is pendingbefore the first respondent along with application for stay and inview of the G.O.(D)No.651 Housing and Urban Development (UD4-1)Department dated 28.10.2004, petitioner is at liberty to pursue thereview application before the first respondent on its own merits andin accordance with law. This court is not inclined to interfere with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the proceedings of the respondents 2 and 3 at this stage when thereview application is pending before the first respondent. Petitioner is entitled to take appropriate proceedings as may beadvised. The writ petition at this point of time, cannot beconsidered on merits. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed ofgiving liberty to the writ petitioner as above. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.tsTo1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 104.2.The District Collector, The Nilgris at Udhagamandalam. 3. The Commissioner, Udhagamandalam Municpality, at Udhagamandalam The Nilgris District. 1 cc To Mr.N.Damodaran, Advocate Sr 33871 cc To Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate Sr 3717 W.P.No.32283 of 2002dm[co]gp/30.1
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, thispetition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.